active-forks VS geom

2. accessing an app running on a windows through rdp, either as a full desktop or as a standalone window.[1] OK granted you are still using windows in that case, in the background, but you can do that only sporadically by launching a cloud windows vm instance for the small amount of time in a year you definitely need that dirty OS for personnal use.

Obviously YMMV but the barrier is mostly psychological imho.

[1] I think there was a project to facilitate that for office, adobe applications called winapps, see the different active forks here:

https://techgaun.github.io/active-forks/index.html#Fmstrat/w...

there is also this:

I know about https://github.com/techgaun/active-forks, however this "only" shows the time of last activity which is not too bad, but not exactly what I'd like to have, since this provides no indication on the (possible) progress of the project (if one could measure progress in units of commits)...

I stumbled upon this tool: https://github.com/techgaun/active-forks. But it didn't help, it didn't work on my repo.

It is abandoned for 4 years, found most active fork(nice tool) of this, which is up to date and have cutting edge tools awesome-foss/awesome-sysadmin

Chrome: Bookmark any page > Click More > (change name) and paste code from https://github.com/techgaun/active-forks into URL section > Save

mentat was archived by mozilla back in 2017, but there are a bunch of forks. Because github is dumb and has a terrible interface for exploring forks [0], I used the Active GitHub Forks tool [1] that helped to find:

qpdb/mentat [2] seems to be the largest (+131 commits) and most recently modified (May this year) fork of mozilla/mentat.

[0]: https://github.com/mozilla/mentat/network/members - Seriously, how am I supposed to use this? Hundreds of entries, but no counts for stars, contributors, or commits, no details about recent commits. Just click every one?

[1]: https://techgaun.github.io/active-forks/index.html

[2]: https://github.com/qpdb/mentat

Yeah, there is this tool: https://techgaun.github.io/active-forks/index.html

I'm really surprised Github doesn't leverage their data for better discovery. Instead you get forks that are second-class citizens and should never be used for active development. For example, they don't get watched by default and their code is not searchable.

On the flip side, I got to read some of the Clojure source code, which was very educational. I also got to understand a bit more the usefulness of protocols (using defprotocol and defrecord to provide several implementations). Here it was very useful to read the source code of thi-ng/geom.

This would make sense if Knuth used literate programming primarily for academic papers. But in fact he created WEB for writing TeX and METAFONT, both of which (while their source code was published as a book later) were production systems, and in fact for several decades now he uses CWEB for all programs he writes, including several a week that he writes for himself. (Some of which are online at https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/programs.html .) In contrast, apart from the paper he wrote introducing LP, and the two Bentley columns about LP in CACM, I'm not aware of any other academic paper of his that presents programs — at any rate, the total number must be very small.

The goal is not an "academic paper"; his experience (and that of others who have seriously tried LP) is that it helps with actual writing of programs, less time spent debugging, etc.

Yes, there are challenges with two or more programmers, but nothing unsurmountable. See "Literate Programming on a Team Project" (https://www.cs.princeton.edu/techreports/1991/302.pdf coauthored by Norman Ramsey, who later developed noweb) and some stories like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17484452 (and https://github.com/thi-ng/geom which went from LP to conventional).